Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-06-2013, 09:27 AM
 
19,637 posts, read 12,226,539 times
Reputation: 26430

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torpedos View Post
if i create something and make millions, billions, trillions by the product or idea, and you are a bum, that is your fault. i took chances, failed and tried again. i could have become a victim but i didnt. i got up dusted my pants off and tried again. not everyone can be rich, or even wealth. it has never happened and never will.
No see your mommy hugged you enough so that you can do this. But some people need their hand held and then still can't do it so they hold out their hand while you get to take it up the....

You cannot un-victim a victim, there is always an excuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2013, 09:29 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13712
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
And in 1992 the EPI changed how they measured income, but still shows the results on one graph.
The problem is liberals, largely uninformed, argue their irrational feelings, not actual facts. No wonder our country is so screwed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,418,303 times
Reputation: 4190
So a factor of 10. Easily the best workers are 10 times more productive today than then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 10:50 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
If we sit down for pie and there are 8 pieces and I eat 7 and leave 1 for you, that might be a problem if there is just one pie. The last pie on the planet.

If I bake a pie for myself and you decide you want a piece and I point you to the pantry and tell you all the ingredients are right there and to bake your own damn pie, I'm not going to lose any sleep if you didn't get any pie. Especially when we have spent $17 trillion dollars since 1965 teaching you how to bake pie.
The Fed will not allow me to print money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaleyRocks View Post
It seems to me that we are confusing two separate issues. Yes, there is too much welfare and abuse in this country. We make it possible for people to not work and be able to survive. There are too many folks on welfare who are scamming the system. I completely agree.

There are also too many laws governing everyday people. And we are now using tax laws to control people and influence their choices when taxes should only be used to generate income. Agreed there too.

However we need to realize that we are also handing over control of our country to the corporations and allowing ourselves to be enslaved. To continue to stick our heads in the sand and say there is no problem, just not hard enough workers is naive at best. We, everyday normal people, don't make the laws anymore, lobbyists do. And when that happens we start to loose our liberties.
I bolded the word "now" above to note that we have been using the tax laws to guide behavior almost as long as there have been tax laws.

Giving a deduction for dependents encourages dependents; giving a mortgage deduction encourages mortgages. We from time-to-time have given energy credits for installation of solar and wind; and installation of energy star boilers, windows and insulation. The purpose was precisely to change behavior. Instead of expressing this as something bad it is actually good public policy.

On your last point about denying that there is a problem, you are right. The U.S. has one of the worst instances of income inequality and class mobility in the developed world -- and the right pretends it does not exist or admits it does exist but argues it is normal. You can see this in Princeton professor (and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers), Alan Krueger's, Great Gatsby Curve:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13712
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The U.S. has one of the worst instances of income inequality and class mobility in the developed world
The U.S. also has the most progressive tax system.





As such, it's in the U.S. Government's best interest to encourage and promote as much of an income gap as possible. The government has a HUGE incentive to keep the top 1%'s share of income as high as possible as they're the federal income tax revenue cash cows. They pay the highest tax rates AND the highest tax dollar revenues. Tax revenue shrinks without them and their income.

Explained in detail, here:
Why the government keeps the poor, poor, and the rich, rich

If you want more income equality, you're going to have to pay for it and flatten the federal income tax rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:33 AM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,959,215 times
Reputation: 2326
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The U.S. also has the most progressive tax system.





As such, it's in the U.S. Government's best interest to encourage and promote as much of an income gap as possible. The government has a HUGE incentive to keep the top 1%'s share of income as high as possible as they're the federal income tax revenue cash cows. They pay the highest tax rates AND the highest tax dollar revenues. Tax revenue shrinks without them and their income.

Explained in detail, here:
Why the government keeps the poor, poor, and the rich, rich
Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Why you have latched on to that one very poorly bit of "journalistic" analysis is beyond me because it is very limited on how it measures progressive versus regressive and doesn't take spending programs into consideration.

Again, it's bad and false, and trotting it out numerous times doesn't make it any less so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
On your last point about denying that there is a problem, you are right.
Correct. There is no problem other than Crony Capitalism as exhibited by our Chief Crony Capitalist in the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:50 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Why you have latched on to that one very poorly bit of "journalistic" analysis is beyond me because it is very limited on how it measures...
Not so much... It's not a journalistic analysis.

"The most comprehensive scholarly work on this question to date comes from sociologists, Monica Prasad and YingYing Deng, who use data on individual incomes to calculate total tax burdens at different levels of the income distribution."

You're just upset because the data doesn't match your ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:56 AM
 
4,738 posts, read 4,434,679 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
As such, it's in the U.S. Government's best interest to encourage and promote as much of an income gap as possible. The government has a HUGE incentive to keep the top 1%'s share of income as high as possible as they're the federal income tax revenue cash cows. They pay the highest tax rates AND the highest tax dollar revenues. Tax revenue shrinks without them and their income.

I don't think you are factoring in political instability. Inequality will foster instability, which is a very real and predictable outcome.

Plus - its hard to read how they are noting "progressive" i.e. what defines income and in what country?


By any measure a progressive tax system would have someone like Romney paying 60-70% of income instead of 15%. By playing with the word "income" you may create the illusion of progressive taxes. . .but I would think a progressive tax system (noted by most people to be fair) would have the percentage climbing of income as you go to the top. Maybe maxing out at near 60-80% of income?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top